Wednesday, September 28, 2011

This is what happens when government seizes corporations. If it will decide to give money to a corporation going bankrupt, to negate legal contracts... to suspend the rule of law, then government owns the result. In the case of GM, literally and morally.

Criticism of such a deal is automatically politicized, and while political speech may be protected under the First Amendment; what is that to the Corporatist Axis? The Axis will suppress free speech in order to protect its political agenda reciprocal "investment."

Ford should keep on, I'll even buy one I don't yet need just to get in Corporatism's face.

Monday, September 26, 2011

49% of Americans believe the federal government has become so large and powerful that it poses an immediate threat to the rights and freedoms of ordinary citizens. In 2003, less than a third (30%) believed this.

Without you, Friedrich Hayek may not have experienced such an upswell of interest.

Thursday, September 22, 2011

Depending on the day and the poll, some 70% of Americans oppose more stimulus and think the federal government spends too much. The president knows this; he is a well informed man. Yet in deed and word he not only supports more spending, he demands it.

Wednesday, September 21, 2011

TOC has skewered Canada from time to time (I lived there for over 20 years), but we've also run quite a few "What we can learn from Canada" posts. There are 79 posts (I didn't count for criticism vs. praise) "labeled" 'Canada' going back to 2006.

How can it be that after all these years of making fun of Canada for all of the right reasons (its anti-Americanism, its social democratic welfare state, its ludicrous Steyn-hunting “human rights” commissions, its export of Michael J. Fox and William Shatner, etc.), it can now be held up as a superior model to Obama’s America?

What I cannot comprehend is how Hayward failed to mention Jennifer Granholm in his critique of Canadian expats. Then too, he had to be reminded of Celine Dion.

At least Celine Dion's recordings have the social utility to be used to torture those incarcerated at Gitmo. The real damage to this country was done by Jennifer Granholm. Forgiving Canada for that will take a long time.

Sunday, September 18, 2011

What would a real response to our [economic] problems involve?... it would involve an all-out effort by the Federal Reserve to get the economy moving, with the deliberate goal of generating higher inflation to help alleviate debt problems.

It seems to me that the Fed is already doing what Krugman asks inflation-wise, but, like Stimulus One, it's just not big enough.

One wonders what an all-out effort would look like? Weimar? Zimbabwe? THOSE were all out efforts to inflate debt away.

Among other things, capitalism is about taking risk. When the government removes all risk from an "investment", the result cannot be called capitalism. It can be called corporatism, crony capitalism, mercantilism, fascism or socialism, but not capitalism. Such deals are the province of corporatist whores and their government enablers who suspend the rule of law in order to loot the public treasury.

The Obama administration restructured a half-billion dollar federal loan to a troubled solar energy company in such a way that private investors — including a fundraiser for President Barack Obama — moved ahead of taxpayers for repayment in case of a default, government records show.

Administration officials defended the loan restructuring, saying that without an infusion of cash earlier this year, solar panel maker Solyndra Inc. would likely have faced immediate bankruptcy, putting more than 1,000 people out of work.

"Without an infusion of cash... Solyndra Inc. would likely have faced immediate bankruptcy?" So, instead of 1,000 lost jobs we have 1,000 lost jobs at a cost of $535,000 per lost job, and those whose lost their jobs don't get the money, the venture huckster-bundlers do.

The "appearance of corruption" is a good enough reason for the Supreme Court of the United States to suspend our First Amendment rights. The appearance of corruption is apparently not a good enough reason to avoid giving free money to Solyndra connected bundlers.

Tuesday, September 13, 2011

Apropos of his fear of calling a spade a spade (see also Obamneycare) Mitt Romney took Rick Perry to task last night because Perry called Social Security a Ponzi scheme. James Taranto mounts a defense of sorts:

Perry was not claiming that Social Security is literally a criminal enterprise but asserting that there are similarities between Social Security and a Ponzi scheme.

It is probably true that Perry did not literally mean Social Security is a criminal enterprise. It should be noted, however, that Social Security is not a criminal enterprise only by definition. The people who define what constitutes a criminal enterprise say so.

Imagine Social Security as an investment fund offered by a private company. The Social Security "prospectus" makes guarantees it manifestly cannot fulfill, and the executives in charge largely continue to lie about that. Its accounting practices are much worse than those of Enron. Payments are funded in a way which put Bernie Madoff in jail. The major difference between Madoff and the United States government is that Madoff could not legally exact "investments" with the threat of violence.

If Madoff could legally have paid US dollar investments back in Zimbabwean dollars, he'd be a free man. In contrast, those ultimately in charge of Social Security deliberately and continuously debase SS payments to their own advantage. Unaccountably, they are free men.

Social Security would be a better system if it were a criminal enterprise.

Thursday, September 08, 2011

Anyone who opposes me... blah, blah... Democrat applause line... blah, blah... is a foolish, anti-American, baby eating Republican... blah, blah... applause line no one could disagree with if they believed he meant it... blah, blah... Democrat applause line... who deserves to be tarred and feathered because he hates teachers, old people and bridges... blah, blah... blah, blah... hundreds of billions... blah, blah... fiscally responsible, will be paid for... bleh, bleh... there's an election in 14 months... blah, blah.

He does seem to have got his 2008 teleprompters back in service. They did a fine job.

Wednesday, September 07, 2011

The congresscritters in Atlas Shrugged said things similar in meaning, but not one of them was so dumb as Maxine "Moral Hazard" Waters.

If they [banks] don’t come up with loan modifications and keep people in their homes that they’ve worked so hard for, we’re going to tax them out of business

The ways in which this is stupid are beyond counting, but one has to wonder what is Ms Waters plan if she destroys all the banks. Didn't we just get done bailing them out?* Are they suddenly too resistant to making more stupid loans not to be forced to fail?

Ms Waters, of course, is the congresscritter who threatened to nationalize the oil companies, "[T]his liberal will be all about socialize [sic]...er, ah ... basically, ... about the government taking over and running your companies!" One can presume she means the same thing when threatening to tax banks into extinction. The "government taking over your banks and giving them to Fannie Mae." We know how that's worked so far.

Even aside from its lack of conciseness, "the government taking over and running your companies," is not a good euphemism for "socialize." It is far too straightforward. But Maxine Waters apparently didn't even get the memo that the proper description of her statist policies is "progressive," which at least has the virtue of moving the statists away from their appropriation of "liberal." A word that doesn't mean what they've turned it into.

Tuesday, September 06, 2011

We got to keep an eye on the battle that we face: The war on workers. And you see it everywhere, it is the Tea Party. And you know, there is only one way to beat and win that war. The one thing about working people is we like a good fight. And you know what? They’ve got a war, they got a war with us and there’s only going to be one winner. It’s going to be the workers of Michigan, and America. We’re going to win that war.

President Obama, this is your army. We are ready to march. Let’s take these son of bitches out and give America back to an America where we belong.

To be clear, the LSJ, et. al. did report on the Detroit rally, they simply fail to mention Hoffa's "incivlity."

No one in the MSM seems to recall our president's comments following the Tucson shootings:

But at a time when our discourse has become so sharply polarized – at a time when we are far too eager to lay the blame for all that ails the world at the feet of those who think differently than we do – it’s important for us to pause for a moment and make sure that we are talking with each other in a way that heals, not a way that wounds.

Of course, we can't talk in a healing way to people whose motivation is asking the national government to live within its means. That's crazy talk. As the Vice President has indicated, such people are terrorists - unworthy of civil discourse

Monday, September 05, 2011

The euphemism "Public/Private Partnership" contains 3 lies in as many words. It isn't "public," it's government. It isn't "private," it's crony capitalists. It isn't "partnership," it's conspiracy. The inevitable result of "public/private partnership" is waste. The only variables are the extent to which liberty is diminished and the amount of public treasure wasted.

At the middle of that scale we have the abject failure of the City of New London/Pfizer Corporation gang-theft of Susette Kelo's home and those of her neighbors. It's not easy to fail so spectacularly, it took impressive incompetence and around $100 million to turn a neighborhood into a wasteland. In the end, imposing this urban blight hinged on the collusion of the Supreme Court of the United States. Federal institutions didn't start it though, the plan was the brain-child of regional government.

Here are some relevant facts about the government/corporatist looters in New London, Connecticut; the quintessential example of what politicians and rent-seeking businesses mean by public/private partnership:

New London had a population of 27,620 at the 2010 census. The Norwich-New London metropolitan area (NECTA[2]) includes twenty-one towns[3] and 274,055 people.[4]

...On February 22, 2005, the United States Supreme Court decided in Kelo v. City of New London, that the city may seize privately owned real property under eminent domain so that it could be used for private economic development, deciding the tax revenue from the private development satisfied the requirement for public interest for eminent domain.

This decision is of a piece with the use of the Commerce Clause to justify forcing Americans to purchase health insurance. If the only requirement for seizure of private property is a local official's estimate of future potential tax revenue, what constraint is there? How does your labor differ in principal? Answer: It doesn't. If you're nearing retiremment age, you've been looted in exchange for promises of Social Security and Medicare you won't see. If you're younger you will be looted for decades whether those promises are kept or not. You don't even have to be born yet.

In spite of the city's legal victory, the project never got off the ground. The city's chosen redeveloper was not able to get financing for the project. In spite of an expenditure over eighty million dollars by the city acquiring and demolishing the area where the taken homes once stood, is now a vacant. In November, 2009, Pfizer, which was to be the primary beneficiary of the redevelopment, announced that they instead are closing their facility adjacent to the site and moving those operations across the Thames River to their site in Groton.[7][8] The New London campus was sold to General Dynamics in 2010.

Where, one might ask, could a city of 27,000 find $80 million with which to persecute and defraud a handful of its citizens? From its regional government:

New London has a form of government centering on a professional city manager and elected city council. Distinct town and city government structures formerly existed, and technically continue. However, they now govern exactly the same territory, and have elections on the same ballot on Election Day in November, the first Tuesday after the first Monday, of odd-numbered years; the officials of town and city interact essentially as do the officials of a single town or city who have different but related responsibilities and powers.

As of 1960, counties in Connecticut do not have any associated county government structure. All municipal services are provided by the towns. In order to address regional issues concerning infrastructure, land use, and economic development, regional councils of governments throughout the state were established in 1989. Most of the towns of New London County are part of the Southeastern Connecticut Council of Governments, the exceptions being the towns of Lyme, Old Lyme, and Lebanon. Lyme and Old Lyme are part of the Connecticut River Estuary Regional Planning Agency, while Lebanon is part of the Windham Regional Council of Governments.

Whenever you hear that we need regional government co-operation, think of Kelo, and if what you hear is coupled with the words "sustainable development," think twice about the outcomes and read up on Agenda 21. Think about half a billion dollars up in smoke at Solyndra.

So what does New London have to show for its arrogance? A 91 acre, weed-strewn dump occupied by feral cats; where there once was a vibrant community. And New London also has 1,400 fewer jobs. Pfizer pulled out of New London, taking those jobs with it.

Saturday, September 03, 2011

In a King World News broadcast, yesterday, the respected bank analyst openly and unequivocally calls for the Fed to "print money".

I defer to Whalen's judgment regarding bank securities (he thinks BAC should declare Chapter 11). But I often disagree with Whalen on policy issues, and this money printing nonsense is another example.

Amendment I - Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Amendment II - A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Amendment III - No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

Amendment IV - The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Amendment V - No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Amendment VI - In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.

Amendment VII - In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

The Other Club blog takes its name from a dining club founded by Winston Churchill and F. E. Smith in 1911.Rule 12 of that club: "Nothing in the rules or intercourse of the Club shall interfere with the rancour or asperity of Party politics."

Copyright 2005-2017, The Other Club blog. Watermark theme. Theme images by bopshops. Powered by Blogger.